What kind of life support would you like to see in stock?

[pxi]

All of the relevant points have already been made earlier in the thread. I'm strongly in favour of life-support getting some kind on nod in stock. I'm also strongly in favour of it being a feature that can be disabled.

Now that we seem to be getting a nod towards the challenge of communication in space, it's the last outstanding feature I personally feel is desperately missing from stock KSP in regards to the real-world challenges of spaceflight.

I recognise that some don't find life-support 'fun', but it's another piece in the puzzle as far as I'm concerned. Personally speaking (and being extremely pedantic), I don't classify KSP as 'fun', although I do find it an extremely satisfying game. To me, juggling these things are a huge component of the 'fun'.

[klgraham1013]

I don't classify KSP as 'fun', although I do find it an extremely satisfying game.

That's a good point. One of the most rewarding / satisfying games I've played.

[Wjolcz]

An actual greenhouse (glass roof) should itself function as a solar panel for its own use, and only require added power at night, or if the insolation is below some value. "Closed" (to the sun) greenhouses are obviously different.

I would actually like to see a green house with glass roof and consuming electricity. Just to balance things out. Maybe the amount of electricity could rise the farther from the sun it gets, because, you know, photosynthesis. Similar to how solar panels work now.

[legoclone09]

Snacks! life support is fun, I like it. It works and is easy to use.

[tater]

I would define strawman for you fellas, but I think I'd be wasting my time. Regardless, it does not apply.

Yeah, I know it technically doesn't apply, since you didn't trivially shoot it down to prove a point. Any of the rest of us could have as regex did, so I tend to think of them as straw man targets---for US.

Realism is entirely unconnected to gameplay quality/difficulty. Realism can improve it, or it can harm it, it depends on what is added, and how it is added, there is no correlation at all that says realism --> bad gameplay. WW2OL would have been so much better if it were far more realistic than it was, for example. The best moments were always when it accidentally ended up "feeling real." Those moments were few and far between, but incredibly powerful.

Seems like Easy would have no LS, Moderate would have something like Snacks!/USILS (no deaths), and Hard would have death, with custom options available.

Edited August 10, 2015 by tater

[NWM]

The most important thing is making the life support work as a difficulty setting to ease the conflict between the hard-cores and the take-it-easy-men.

My opinion:

Kerbal orbit: nothing extra

Mün: heat management needed, air, food can be carried easily (set of cabin)

Minmus: worth to employ air refreshing devices or serious air tanks needed, food - set of cabin

Inner planets: (Eve, Duna): air reprocessing is inevitable (or wast tanks needed), serious set of food has to be carried,

Jool: time for fully self-supporting ships

These steps makes the probes worth to use, and gives a stepping of the development in the game...

[Budgie]

To add to the debate, as I don't know if its been mentioned: I really really don't want large RCS-tank sized parts for life support. I hope its all self-contained inside the capsules, or small enough to put inside the service bay. Science parts are already huge, and I don't want to keep making my spacecrafts longer and longer (look at the size of the materials study. Nearly the same form factor as the 1-man capsule), nor clip parts for aesthetics every time I want to use these parts.

The only exception I feel is worth making would be for large, constantly functioning parts for space stations or interplanetary spacecrafts. I can see it fitting with the stock aesthetic and adding to the required parts to maintain a liveable outpost in space, without suddenly making them twice as big.

[Wjolcz]

To add to the debate, as I don't know if its been mentioned: I really really don't want large RCS-tank sized parts for life support. I hope its all self-contained inside the capsules, or small enough to put inside the service bay. Science parts are already huge, and I don't want to keep making my spacecrafts longer and longer (look at the size of the materials study. Nearly the same form factor as the 1-man capsule), nor clip parts for aesthetics every time I want to use these parts.

The only exception I feel is worth making would be for large, constantly functioning parts for space stations or interplanetary spacecrafts. I can see it fitting with the stock aesthetic and adding to the required parts to maintain a liveable outpost in space, without suddenly making them twice as big.

Same. I can imagine Hitchhikers being great supply containers.

[Third_OfFive]

I really like this idea. Very well thought-out, but not too complicated.

However, there is one thing that I think should be removed, and a few small things that should be added:

Radiation might affect the crew in certain environments. Either in EVA, or in your pod. If a kerbonaut recieves radiation that exceeds a limit, he might take permanent damage (lowered condition) until he's healed (astronaut complex?medbay?). Over a certain limit, he might die. To avoid this, either hide your lander/spacecraft* in an area where the radiation is lower (maybe in an abyss? or behind a mountain?), use radiation-protected pods, and in EVA, go for short EVAs*, or reinforce the suits of certain kerbonauts with a radiation-protection. Radiation is not a problem on the beginner-friendly moons of Kerbin, but it can be a factor to increase the difficulity of certain celestial bodies

Radiation seems out of place, and too complicated. I think that should be removed.

As for what should be added:

Condition determines how quickly they move, and how much they consume from the life support rescoures. Having a realy low condition might cause the kerbonaut to fail performing his tasks. Taking damage such as hitting the kerbonaut or his pod might lower this permanently, unless healed (astronaut complex?medbay?). After upgrading the astronaut complex, your applicants will not only have starting XP, but they will have a higher condition (due to the advanced training). Condition might be lowered permadently during many-year-long interplanetary missions, and increased by gee forces*.

I like the "Condition" variable. Simple, but realistic.

You mentioned in the OP that applicants' Condition and XP would increase as the astronaut complex is levelled up.

I think that perhaps instead of increasing the condition and XP of applicants, levelling up the astronaut complex could instead allow you to "train" existing astronauts, by clicking a "train" button on each one's bar. This would cost large sums of money in career mode. While training, which could take anywhere from a few days to several weeks, the astronuat will be unavailable to be selected for missions. Each "training session" would increase the selected astronaut's level by one, and would become increasingly more expensive as the astronaut levels up.

As for using the astronaut complex to improve returning astronauts' condition, I simply think that any astronaut that returns to kerbin and is recovered will immediately have their condition replenished back to maximum values.

Morale determines how effectively they perform their tasks as a pilot, engineer, and scientist. Of course, they don't have so much tasks currently. Kerbonauts should have vital tasks so that a low morale would pull back the mission. I have another suggestion to do that, but I will suggest that on another day. Rapidly performing tasks, not having any action for long times (long timewarps), and losing crewmembers might lower this. Having actions such as passing a celestial body, landing, going on EVA there, docking, or meeting a new crew (crew replacement) might increase this. Morale is largely drained during many-year-long interplanetary missions.

I also have something to add concerning the "Morale" variable.

In the astronaut complex, each astronaut has their own "Courage" and "Stupidity" values. These values could effect how the astronaut hold up in certain situations.

Higher "Courage" levels slow down the rate at which the astronaut loses Morale.

Higher "Stupidity" levels decrease the astronaut's overall ability to perform tasks.

- - - Updated - - -

To add to the debate, as I don't know if its been mentioned: I really really don't want large RCS-tank sized parts for life support. I hope its all self-contained inside the capsules, or small enough to put inside the service bay. Science parts are already huge, and I don't want to keep making my spacecrafts longer and longer (look at the size of the materials study. Nearly the same form factor as the 1-man capsule), nor clip parts for aesthetics every time I want to use these parts.

The only exception I feel is worth making would be for large, constantly functioning parts for space stations or interplanetary spacecrafts. I can see it fitting with the stock aesthetic and adding to the required parts to maintain a liveable outpost in space, without suddenly making them twice as big.

Same. Op, please take note of this.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Third_OfFive

[Joonatan1998]

Except it should not be massless, that part makes no sense at all.

The reason I suggest that the LS resource should be massless is to remove the need for a "waste" resource for recycling.

If we just assume that all LS containers come with a waste container that gets filled as the LS is used up then the LS mass can be included into the mass of the part.

The only thing that is lost is waste dumping, but in most places not doing that is justified. by fear of contamination or just not wanting to litter the orbit.

I'm not against having 2 resources with mass, I just think the simplest way would be to have a single massless one.

---

The main reason I think LS is needed is that scientific probes are already mostly useless in career, and the next update seems to plan to nerf them even more.

The kerbal cost could balance things but with rescue missions giving you free crew...

Edited August 11, 2015 by Joonatan1998

[RoverDude]

The reason I suggest that the LS resource should be massless is to remove the need for a "waste" resource for recycling.

If we just assume that all LS containers come with a waste container that gets filled as the LS is used up then the LS mass can be included into the mass of the part.

The only thing that is lost is waste dumping, but in most places not doing that is justified. by fear of contamination or just not wanting to litter the orbit.

I'm not against having 2 resources with mass, I just think the simplest way would be to have a single massless one.

---

The main reason I think LS is needed is that scientific probes are already mostly useless in career, and the next update seems to plan to nerf them even more.

The kerbal cost could balance things but with rescue missions giving you free crew...

There are lots of reasons why massless is a bad idea. Completely invalidates supplementary life support containers, makes for some really weird conservation of mass issues, and the presence of an output is critical if you want to allow any kind of recycling part.

[tater]

Mass neutral is perhaps what you actually mean, Joonatan1998?

[Joonatan1998]

There are lots of reasons why massless is a bad idea. Completely invalidates supplementary life support containers, makes for some really weird conservation of mass issues, and the presence of an output is critical if you want to allow any kind of recycling part.

No it doesnt...

It is almost the same as a system that just never allows dumping the waste into space would be. just think of the empty LS container space as "waste"

I don't understand how it would eliminate supplementary containers, if you move the LS from one tank to other, the waste moves the opposite way. (l think iI read somewhere that in real life at ISS they fill the unmanned supply craft with trash before undocking?)

How does it cause mass conservation issues when the resource is massless?

LS ---->Waste (empty space in LS container) (both massless)

Waste + electric charge in recycler ----> LS (both massless)

With 100% efficiency, you always have just enough waste to fill all your containers.

If you want a less than 100% efficient recycler or one that uses external resources that have mass, like ore or fuel, then you need 2 resources.

Most systems would need 2 resources, my suggestion works fine with just one.

The main goal with massless resource was to avoid the problems with EVA kerbals that prevened them using normal monopropellant, apparently giving them extra mass breaks the walking animation.

Mass neutral is perhaps what you actually mean, Joonatan1998?

Both massless,like electric charge, and mass neutral.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Joonatan1998

[tater]

Mass neutral is OK, massless makes no sense whatsoever. So the LS consumables needed for a 20 year trip have the same (0) mass as those for a 20 minute trip? The added mass is the point.

[mattinoz]

But what if you want to use the waste to seed your colony with organics?

I mean if you were seriously starting a long term off-world habitat then bio-mass is going to be a valuable commodity. After you paid all those funds to get a bunch of Kerbals to Duna it would then be an epic waste of waste bring back that resource to Kerbin where there is, by all reports, no shortage of poo.

So if the resources are massless and tied to container weight.

I can't efficiently ship back an empty (or with just enough supply for the rotating crew) container to be refilled for the next supply run.

[RoverDude]

No it doesnt...

It is almost the same as a system that just never allows dumping the waste into space would be. just think of the empty LS container space as "waste"

I don't understand how it would eliminate supplementary containers, if you move the LS from one tank to other, the waste moves the opposite way. (l think iI read somewhere that in real life at ISS they fill the unmanned supply craft with trash before undocking?)

How does it cause mass conservation issues when the resource is massless?

LS ---->Waste (empty space in LS container) (both massless)

Waste + electric charge in recycler ----> LS (both massless)

With 100% efficiency, you always have just enough waste to fill all your containers.

If you want a less than 100% efficient recycler or one that uses external resources that have mass, like ore or fuel, then you need 2 resources.

Most systems would need 2 resources, my suggestion works fine with just one.

The main goal with massless resource was to avoid the problems with EVA kerbals that prevened them using normal monopropellant, apparently giving them extra mass breaks the walking animation.

Both massless,like electric charge, and mass neutral.

Massless != Mass neutral. Also, imagine a container for your 20 year trip. Your container weight never changes - you have no option of jettisoning waste, even though in a one resource system you have zero use for said waste. A single resource system also severely limits what modders can do with life support (it's one of the issues with the Snacks! mod that led me to make my own LS mod).

In short, a massless single resource system gives you the worst of both worlds... no way to save weight, and no way to extend it without a wholesale replacement.

Also, you can happily add resources to Kerbals just fine, this is a pretty trivial operation already done by several mods.

Side note... I know a tiny bit about mods, and dealing with resources

[Joonatan1998]

Massless != Mass neutral. Also, imagine a container for your 20 year trip. Your container weight never changes - you have no option of jettisoning waste, even though in a one resource system you have zero use for said waste.

What do you mean by "zero use? of course you could recycle the waste (empty LS container space)"

A single resource system also severely limits what modders can do with life support (it's one of the issues with the Snacks! mod that led me to make my own LS mod).

In short, a massless single resource system gives you the worst of both worlds... no way to save weight, and no way to extend it without a wholesale replacement.I didn't really think about extending the system, though most mods that want to extend a system with one "LS" resource would probably need to replace the whole system anyways.

Also, you can happily add resources to Kerbals just fine, this is a pretty trivial operation already done by several mods.

I thought walking animation breaking was the reason SQUAD gave us for kerbals using weightless EVA propellant instead of monopropellant?

Side note... I know a tiny bit about mods, and dealing with resources

I know...

Maybe 2 resource system would be better, but I think 1 resource system could also work.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Joonatan1998

[RoverDude]

Point 1 is incorrect. If your resource is massless, it does not matter if you have 1 or 100,000. It's the same weight. So you're kinda hosed RE reducing weight. And regardless of how much recycling you do (unless it's 100% in which case you need a 0.001 ton part...), you will eventually have loss of mass which is horribly unwieldy with a single massless resource.

Point 2 is also incorrect. Take a look at how many mods extend TAC-LS or Snacks! or USI-LS. Life Support mods are probably among the most extended mods out there, and I would expect stock to be the same (without a total replacement).

Point 3 is incorrect... I have never heard of EVA propellant being in any way tied to the animations. The very fact that mods that change this to monoprop and/or add more resources to EVA kerbals kinda points to this as well.

Trust me when I say that a massless life support resource is a really bad idea.

[tater]

Roverdude, I'd disagree on one point, single resource.

All LS is lossy, so you need to add some consumables. It can be 1, or 100 unique items, doesn't matter, it boils down to adding X mass per person, per day to the system. Waste, OTOH, is effectively only related to the number of persons aboard. X mass of waste per person, per day, regardless of "supplies." I suppose when starving, dehydrated, or unable to breathe you emit less waste, but at the fidelity of LS in KSP, that means you are no longer a person, but dead.

So you could have a single-resource LS system in KSP where the "greenhouse" part simply bases it's "waste" resource on how many kerbals happen to be in the craft. Obviously this does;t let you store up waste ahead of time, but it's still workable, IMO.

USILS doesn't spam every right click with 10 things, which is a major feature to me, I don't mind 2.

[RoverDude]

Roverdude, I'd disagree on one point, single resource.

All LS is lossy, so you need to add some consumables. It can be 1, or 100 unique items, doesn't matter, it boils down to adding X mass per person, per day to the system. Waste, OTOH, is effectively only related to the number of persons aboard. X mass of waste per person, per day, regardless of "supplies." I suppose when starving, dehydrated, or unable to breathe you emit less waste, but at the fidelity of LS in KSP, that means you are no longer a person, but dead.

So you could have a single-resource LS system in KSP where the "greenhouse" part simply bases it's "waste" resource on how many kerbals happen to be in the craft. Obviously this does;t let you store up waste ahead of time, but it's still workable, IMO.

USILS doesn't spam every right click with 10 things, which is a major feature to me, I don't mind 2.

The problem though is you don't have state.

A greenhouse in a one-resource system would be JIT, and effectively just increase consumption rate (or similar schemes where you attempt to do some extrapolation), and would have to adjust this rate dynamically based on the greenhouse state. Then, assuming you don't include a greenhouse with stock, you have a fairly inconvenient interface for modding, so stuff gets weird.

At that point, just add the second resource and call it a day.

[tater]

Seems like it would simply decrease consumption rate. That or it adds new supplies as a function of power, and number of supplied kerbals (functionally the same as decreasing consumption). X kerbals always add X waste/day assuming they are alive, right? This never changes. X+2 kerbals make X+2 waste/day, as long as you know the number of kerbals, you know the amount of waste the "greenhouse" has to work with. Obviously this disallows throwing a greenhouse to a planet ahead of time... but unless you can ship waste ahead, then that's not a thing, anyway, right? I'm not really arguing it, I just think that it's not required, per se. I might totally be missing a programming aspect of it, I admit.

I'm fine with "waste" as a generic term as a stand-in for all the post-consumption stuff that cannot be directly recovered. It's not like tracking another resource is a huge issue

[Joonatan1998]

Point 3 is incorrect... I have never heard of EVA propellant being in any way tied to the animations. The very fact that mods that change this to monoprop and/or add more resources to EVA kerbals kinda points to this as well.

Trust me when I say that a massless life support resource is a really bad idea.

I really thought SQUAD once said something about extra mass breaking the animations...

But now I can't find anything.

Maybe someone just said why they think squad might have made EVA propellant a separate resource from monopropellant. (It really doesn't make much sense?)

If the extra mass doesn't break EVA then I agree that 2 non-massless resource system is much better

[RoverDude]

Sure, well the first fun bit is the time slices - because quantity of kerbals can vary (EVAs, landers, refueling stations, etc.) in conjunction with the 'recycler' capacity. How does it behave when overstuffed? Understuffed? Do we calculate by the second? How do we present this to the user? How does a modder impact the process?

In short... it gets really really weird. To no real benefit.

[Admac]

Having a waste resource is pretty handy, since you can skip recycling on smaller ships, and just dump waste and load up supplies next time they are at a station. Which is a mechanic I dig, feeling mass efficient and futuristic at the same time.

TAC (With 3rd party extensions) was a blast for having lots of ways to get each of the three components, and making in situ farms a lot more challenging. I agree something closer to USILS is what stock should look like since it's a lot simpler, and still has 95% the fun. I do miss harvesting Duna's C02 for farms though.

Actually I bet a tiny extension to add C02 as a requirement to the MKS Cultivator would be all I need...

[MedwedianPresident]

Oxygen, Water and Food are of course the three must-have components for a life support system. How about having different kinds of foods (meat, vegetables, bread, etc...) and drinks (water, soda, lemonade, etc...) and a Happiness stat for Kerbals. If Happiness is down for a long time, sanity will suffer.

Now, happiness is influenced by the types of food and drinks the kerbals are given (for example, fresh meat and vegetables will increase happiness and health), but of course, as in real life, the foods which are the yummiest, will get unhealthy.